Welcome to another installment of Theology with Ghym. Today I want to take a look at the theology of salvation found in the Catholic Church.
The Bible gives three phases to Salvation: At times the authors discuss salvation as something already possessed, something received in the past. At other time they discuss it as something which is ongoing, in the present. Still at other times they speak of salvation as something still far off in the future. This is what I was taught when I was a protestant and this is what I was taught after I became Catholic, as far as I am aware these three phases are universally recognized. I've been saved, I'm being saved and I shall be saved.
That being said, Catholics and Protestants have some very different understandings of these three phases. Protestants put a huge amount of emphasis on the initial point of salvation, seeing it as the moment of justification. For Catholics this is simply the starting point, when we enter into the process; justification comes later.
The departure runs even deeper when one considers how it is we come to be "saved", initially. For Protestants God bestows an initial grace on us which can bring about a saving faith, which, when acted upon by us, brings about our salvation. For Catholics this initial point of salvation actually precedes faith, faith and works come later. God bestows initial grace upon us enabling us to respond with either a yes or a no. If no then we stay outside. If yes, we enter into the process and God bestows even greater graces upon us, slowly bringing about faith and works, justification and sanctification.
For Catholics this initial point of salvation is entirely based upon our own receptivity, our willingness to receive the grace of God. However, this is true, not only of this first point, but of every point that follows. God continually offers us ever more grace and we continually say yes or no. As we say yes, through works or prayers or sacraments, God acts upon our hearts to bring about even more faith.
Catholics do not discuss the initial point of salvation overly much because it is simply the first link in a very long chain. It is the first yes we offer up to God, but it is far from the only one. In the second phase of salvation there is an ongoing cycle. God's grace brings about faith, our faith is made manifest in works, our works dispose us towards a greater receptivity to grace, we get more grace which brings about more faith and the cycle continues.
The final point of salvation is achieved when we are made fully open to God. This is that moment of complete surrender when we are brought into the inter life of the Trinity. It is here that we are able to fully embrace the salvation won for us on Calvary. It is only here that we are fully sanctified and thus fully repentant and can fully receive our justification.
It is not necessary that one be a Catholic, or even a Christian, in order to be saved. All that is necessary is that one be willing to receive the grace of God. You must be open to Him, He will do the rest.
The great thing about being Catholic is that we have the fullness of the truth and the sacraments. As we participate in the life of the Church our spiritual life is expedited. The sacraments and sacramentals are tools which help us along the journey. We have saints who serve as examples by which we might live our lives more fully inline with God's will. And most of all, we get to know God, not just personally, but intimately. Every time we participate in the Mass we receive a glimpse of heaven. Every time we receive the Eucharist we receive love incarnate in the most intimate act we could possibly share with God himself.
Truly, it is not necessary to be Catholic, but it really helps.
Showing posts with label catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catholic. Show all posts
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Monday, April 8, 2013
Catholic in the Extreme
Sorry for taking such a long break. I especially want to apologize to my fans, i know you both missed me terribly.
Part of the reason was gone so long was i simply ran out of topics worth writing on. Or rather, I ran out of things to say on them. The other part is, trying to write a post weakly became a chore and then i lost interest. From now on i will try to post more than once a semester, but no promises on how often that will be.
Here is what got me to come back. I saw a post from CatholicVote today and it got me thinking. You can read the article here. But basically, the author is upset that some low level military clerk put together a power point in which Catholics were referred to as extremists.
Now, on the one hand, the power point did put us along side such groups as the KKK, Al Queda and Hamas. That is a little offensive but that was not CatholicVote's complaint. CatholicVote was upset we were called "extremists". They found something which was marginally offensive and then proceeded to miss why. Yes, it is offensive to imply the Catholic Church is a hate group. No, it is not offensive to call us extremists. That is exactly what we are called to be.
We are called to a radical Christianity that makes itself felt in every part of the world, that expresses itself in every aspect of society. Not with blades or bombs, but with truth and love. Catholic extremists devote their lives to serve the poor and underprivileged, they build schools and hospitals, they travel to strange and distant lands just to tell people whom they had never met just how much they love them.
Some religious extremists have Bin Laden. We have Mother Teresa.
Saints are radical, they go to the extreme. St. Francis once challenged a group of Muslim scholars to walk with him through a furnace and whoever survived served the true God. The scholars declined his offer.
After John Paul II recovered from being shot he went and forgave his attacker and even converted him to Christianity.
As the Titanic was going down, Father Thomas Byles turned down two seats on life boats in order to remain with those who needed him. He gave up his life in order to spend a few more minutes with people who were soon to die. He spent his last minutes praying the rosary, hearing confession and sharing what words of comfort he had.
This is Catholic Extremism, this is what we are called to. We ought never take offense when someone accuses us of living up to it. If only there were more Catholic extremists out there, the world would be a much better place.
From your friendly neighborhood Ghym
If you are wondering how to be a little more extreme in your Catholicism, consider joining MissionPals. A free pen pal program i'm running which pairs active catholic missionaries with everyday lay Catholics for mutual support and edification. You can read more about it at http://missionpals.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, consider liking my page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or share me with a friend!
Part of the reason was gone so long was i simply ran out of topics worth writing on. Or rather, I ran out of things to say on them. The other part is, trying to write a post weakly became a chore and then i lost interest. From now on i will try to post more than once a semester, but no promises on how often that will be.
Here is what got me to come back. I saw a post from CatholicVote today and it got me thinking. You can read the article here. But basically, the author is upset that some low level military clerk put together a power point in which Catholics were referred to as extremists.
Now, on the one hand, the power point did put us along side such groups as the KKK, Al Queda and Hamas. That is a little offensive but that was not CatholicVote's complaint. CatholicVote was upset we were called "extremists". They found something which was marginally offensive and then proceeded to miss why. Yes, it is offensive to imply the Catholic Church is a hate group. No, it is not offensive to call us extremists. That is exactly what we are called to be.
We are called to a radical Christianity that makes itself felt in every part of the world, that expresses itself in every aspect of society. Not with blades or bombs, but with truth and love. Catholic extremists devote their lives to serve the poor and underprivileged, they build schools and hospitals, they travel to strange and distant lands just to tell people whom they had never met just how much they love them.
Some religious extremists have Bin Laden. We have Mother Teresa.
Saints are radical, they go to the extreme. St. Francis once challenged a group of Muslim scholars to walk with him through a furnace and whoever survived served the true God. The scholars declined his offer.
After John Paul II recovered from being shot he went and forgave his attacker and even converted him to Christianity.
As the Titanic was going down, Father Thomas Byles turned down two seats on life boats in order to remain with those who needed him. He gave up his life in order to spend a few more minutes with people who were soon to die. He spent his last minutes praying the rosary, hearing confession and sharing what words of comfort he had.
This is Catholic Extremism, this is what we are called to. We ought never take offense when someone accuses us of living up to it. If only there were more Catholic extremists out there, the world would be a much better place.
From your friendly neighborhood Ghym
If you are wondering how to be a little more extreme in your Catholicism, consider joining MissionPals. A free pen pal program i'm running which pairs active catholic missionaries with everyday lay Catholics for mutual support and edification. You can read more about it at http://missionpals.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, consider liking my page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or share me with a friend!
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Why Every Woman Should be a Mother and Every Man a Father
Motherhood is one of those indispensable positions. We really can't do without it. The same is true of fatherhood. Catholics hold that every child has a right to a mother and a father. Although some instances make this impossible, outside of anyone's control, to purposefully deprive a child of either parent is to violate their rights and to act contrary to their dignity. We each begin life as a child, with a calling to be sons and daughters. As we grow older we gain a new vocation, to be mothers and fathers. This is universal to every person who has ever or will ever live.
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Understanding Sin as Tangent
Generally, I avoid the term sin. This is not because i find the topic distasteful, but because most people don't know what sin is. They see it as arbitrary divine judgement. For them, sin is the violation of some supernatural legal code. Just as crime results in prison, sin results in damnation. It's cold and impersonal and alienating. When they hear us say they are sinning they simply hear us passing judgment on them. Although i will not shy away from talking about sins, generally, i will avoid the term. It just confuses the issue and pushes people farther away.
However, this is based on a misconception of God, of His relation to us. God is not a power hungry tyrant, He is not an impersonal and wrathful judge. He is a loving Father, and He created us with a purpose. To understand sin, we must first understand this purpose and our relation to God.
There is a meaning to life. We were created for the greatest good of all, complete union with God, in which we find true happiness and ultimate joy. We enter into this union through love, through the true self-gift. This is not something we do, but rather something we allow God to do. All you really contribute is your yes, when you say yes to God and offer Him the entirety of yourself. So long as i pursue my own good, i will never find the ultimate good. So long as i am looking out for myself and pursuing my own happiness, true joy and fulfillment will forever evade me. So i let go, and offer myself to God. I allow him to love me and to love the world through me. In giving myself to Him, i receive Him in turn, and find the purpose for which i was made.
There is this path, its narrow and steep, but when we travel it we travel with God, towards our true purpose. This is the path of salvation. God neither forces us to walk it nor to remain on it. There are many other paths to choose from, often times they seem more appealing, but they do not takes us anywhere we really want to go. They are tangents, leading us away from our true ends. We walk the path of salvation so long as we pursue God, the ultimate good. We leave this path and pursue the tangents when we choose lesser goods over God, temporal good over eternal good, personal good over the good of others.
God does not send anyone to Hell. If He did, he would be a monster, creating man simply to subject him to eternal torment. God sends no one to Hell. Each and every soul who arrives in this destination of the damned is there of their own free will, their own volition. They refused God when He offered them salvation, when He offered them Himself. The souls in Hell said no when God offered them Heaven.
When we place our hope in anything apart from God it will eventually fail us. We pursue lesser goods but they don't satisfy us. They may grant us a momentary escape from the miseries of life, but soon they fade. We seek them out again, but this time we need more to get the same feelings, and again they fade. Soon it does not matter how much we get, our desire cannot be satisfied. We desire a fulfillment which can only be achieved in finding our meaning, our purpose in being. We all hope in someday finding that purpose, but the longer we seek it in vain the more our hope fades, until it finally dies, and all we are left with is despair. Hell is not a place like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee, it is a state of being, it is the complete absence of a meaning only God can provide. Hell is the complete and utter despair resulting from a life of self-gratification.
Sin aught not to be seen as a legal term, divine or otherwise. Our true fulfillment is found in union with God, and God desires that for us. However, He gave us free will so that we could choose for ourselves. We have the power to choose against God, to reject Him. We can take actions that impede our union with God, that separate us from the ultimate good, that lead us on the path towards the misery of despair. This is the essence of sin. This is what we aught to mean when we refer to it. Sin is that which separates us from God, from the ultimate good, from the purpose of our being. It consists of those things which are spiritually harmful to the individual who does them.
God desires that which is best for us, which is union with Him. Sin harms us by separating us from Him and binding us to the world. Nothing in creation is evil in of itself. Food is good, sex is good, music is good, everything is created good. The problem comes when we prefer these things to God. Again, God sends no one to Hell, it is not something God subjects us to, it is something we subject ourselves to. But why? Why would anyone choose Hell over Heaven? It is because of the high cost of Heaven. In order to gain paradise, we must be willing to give up everything. All the goods of creation are distractions we must be willing to sacrifice. No human being can do this alone. It is only with God's aid that this is possible. Even then we all will fall short on occasion. Sins are those things which tie us to these lesser goods and distract us from God.
When we do something that leads us away from God, we are choosing against Heaven. When we stop pursuing God and go off on these tangents, that is sin. When God tells us to give to those in need and avoid murdering our neighbors, it is because He desires what is best for us. I could rightly say that contraception is a sin, but most people would hear something like; contraception makes God angry and now your going to hell. This understanding would not only be unhelpful, but it could even lead people away from Christ and His Church. So rather than give scandal, i say contraception harms you as a person, it impedes your true happiness and hinders your relationship with God. Far less offensive, much more informative, and yet I have said the exact same thing in both cases. For that is what sin does and why it is so bad; it harms us as people, impedes our true happiness and hinders our relationship with God.
Sin is a tangent, because it distracts us from the real purpose of it all.
However, this is based on a misconception of God, of His relation to us. God is not a power hungry tyrant, He is not an impersonal and wrathful judge. He is a loving Father, and He created us with a purpose. To understand sin, we must first understand this purpose and our relation to God.
There is a meaning to life. We were created for the greatest good of all, complete union with God, in which we find true happiness and ultimate joy. We enter into this union through love, through the true self-gift. This is not something we do, but rather something we allow God to do. All you really contribute is your yes, when you say yes to God and offer Him the entirety of yourself. So long as i pursue my own good, i will never find the ultimate good. So long as i am looking out for myself and pursuing my own happiness, true joy and fulfillment will forever evade me. So i let go, and offer myself to God. I allow him to love me and to love the world through me. In giving myself to Him, i receive Him in turn, and find the purpose for which i was made.
There is this path, its narrow and steep, but when we travel it we travel with God, towards our true purpose. This is the path of salvation. God neither forces us to walk it nor to remain on it. There are many other paths to choose from, often times they seem more appealing, but they do not takes us anywhere we really want to go. They are tangents, leading us away from our true ends. We walk the path of salvation so long as we pursue God, the ultimate good. We leave this path and pursue the tangents when we choose lesser goods over God, temporal good over eternal good, personal good over the good of others.
God does not send anyone to Hell. If He did, he would be a monster, creating man simply to subject him to eternal torment. God sends no one to Hell. Each and every soul who arrives in this destination of the damned is there of their own free will, their own volition. They refused God when He offered them salvation, when He offered them Himself. The souls in Hell said no when God offered them Heaven.
When we place our hope in anything apart from God it will eventually fail us. We pursue lesser goods but they don't satisfy us. They may grant us a momentary escape from the miseries of life, but soon they fade. We seek them out again, but this time we need more to get the same feelings, and again they fade. Soon it does not matter how much we get, our desire cannot be satisfied. We desire a fulfillment which can only be achieved in finding our meaning, our purpose in being. We all hope in someday finding that purpose, but the longer we seek it in vain the more our hope fades, until it finally dies, and all we are left with is despair. Hell is not a place like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee, it is a state of being, it is the complete absence of a meaning only God can provide. Hell is the complete and utter despair resulting from a life of self-gratification.
Sin aught not to be seen as a legal term, divine or otherwise. Our true fulfillment is found in union with God, and God desires that for us. However, He gave us free will so that we could choose for ourselves. We have the power to choose against God, to reject Him. We can take actions that impede our union with God, that separate us from the ultimate good, that lead us on the path towards the misery of despair. This is the essence of sin. This is what we aught to mean when we refer to it. Sin is that which separates us from God, from the ultimate good, from the purpose of our being. It consists of those things which are spiritually harmful to the individual who does them.
God desires that which is best for us, which is union with Him. Sin harms us by separating us from Him and binding us to the world. Nothing in creation is evil in of itself. Food is good, sex is good, music is good, everything is created good. The problem comes when we prefer these things to God. Again, God sends no one to Hell, it is not something God subjects us to, it is something we subject ourselves to. But why? Why would anyone choose Hell over Heaven? It is because of the high cost of Heaven. In order to gain paradise, we must be willing to give up everything. All the goods of creation are distractions we must be willing to sacrifice. No human being can do this alone. It is only with God's aid that this is possible. Even then we all will fall short on occasion. Sins are those things which tie us to these lesser goods and distract us from God.
When we do something that leads us away from God, we are choosing against Heaven. When we stop pursuing God and go off on these tangents, that is sin. When God tells us to give to those in need and avoid murdering our neighbors, it is because He desires what is best for us. I could rightly say that contraception is a sin, but most people would hear something like; contraception makes God angry and now your going to hell. This understanding would not only be unhelpful, but it could even lead people away from Christ and His Church. So rather than give scandal, i say contraception harms you as a person, it impedes your true happiness and hinders your relationship with God. Far less offensive, much more informative, and yet I have said the exact same thing in both cases. For that is what sin does and why it is so bad; it harms us as people, impedes our true happiness and hinders our relationship with God.
Sin is a tangent, because it distracts us from the real purpose of it all.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
A Catholic View of Evolution and Darwinism; Part II - How it All Relates
Assuming you read Part I, welcome back! If you have not yet done so, i highly recommend you do.
Evolution and darwinism are not the same thing, nor are creationism and intelligent design. Evolution is a completely legitimate scientific theory. Darwinism is an absurdest philosophy masquerading as natural science. Evolutionists and creationists are opposed to one another but they are both attempting to answer the same question; how did we get here? They want to provide the efficient cause of humanity, earth and the universe. Darwinism and intelligent design are similarly diametrically opposed, but they too are trying to answer a singular question; why are we here. They want to explain the final cause.
I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. That is, i believe in an intelligent design to the universe but i accept evolution as God's modus operandi in creation. It does not matter to me if you believe in evolution or creationism. The theological truths about God and the universe are largely unaffected by what position you take there. I would much rather spend my time blasting darwinism and upholding intelligent design. However, i feel i should give a brief explanation for my position and i'll do that near the end.
Evolution seems to fit well with naturalism as it doesn't expressly call for a supernatural outside force. As i said last week, there is nothing inherently wrong with naturalism so long as it is merely methodological. The problem arises when one corrupts it into metaphysical naturalism.
Metaphysics is the study of being, it is the purest form of philosophy, seeking to understand the formal and final causes; what we are and why we are here. Naturalism is the assumption of purely natural causality. When it is applied to metaphysics we are left with a philosophy of being which rejects anything beyond the seen, beyond the natural. This is, of course, incomparable with creationism and so it strives to find footing in evolution. The resulting monstrosity is known as darwinism.
Although this may at first seem a match made in heaven (forgive the pun), we quickly come upon two major problems. The first problem is the law of entropy. This argument has been used ad nauseum against evolution, and that is not my intention here, especially considering that it doesn't work. However, the argument does have some weight against darwinism. Entropy is sameness or disorder. The law of entropy states that in a closed system the amount of entropy can only increase. That is, assuming no outside force, things only ever get more similar and less complex. Consider a camp fire reducing the wooden logs to their base components. The diversity and complexity of the wood are gone. Only ash remains.
Evolution calls for a growing of complexity and diversity over time, seemingly in direct contradiction to the law of entropy. The only explanation is that this isn't a closed system. The darwinist would argue the decrees in entropy in evolution is attributable to increased entropy elsewhere, namely the sun and to a much lesser extent the earth. However, just think about that. What is really more impressive? A universe simply snapped into existence with all the complexities already in place or a universe which gradually unfolds in time with the capacity to grow in complexity despite a tendency towards ciaos? The second one calls out for God with far greater subtlety, but it calls out for a God far more worthy of being called out to.
The second problem is easier to express and harder to refute. Evolution is a process. By definition it has to start somewhere. You can't have infinite regression. This is an old argument, but it still works just as well. There must be a first mover, an uncaused cause, to set the entire process in motion. Darwinism can't account for this. In Catholic theology this is the very definition of God, the first mover, the uncaused cause. Evolution can't tell me if God really is personal or loving or even sentient, but it tells me God exists.
Creationism and evolution both call out for God, they just do it in different ways. Creationism is more blatant, evolution is more subtle. Creationism is in a hurry, evolution is more patient. While creationism screams for God's existence, evolution suffices with a whisper.
Intelligent design can be taken on multiple levels, but at it's core it simply says there is a reason for existence beyond random chance, that there is a God who is sentient and who designed the laws by which our universe functions. It allows for meaning and purpose in existence. It says there is more than just what we see. Although it is usually paired with creationism, there is no reason to reject evolution as the means for this intelligent design.
I won't say creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, but there are many very intelligent people who embrace it. I think creationists are wrong, but they do have some good arguments, and they keep evolutionists honest. They even expose serious flaws in the theory of evolution which might otherwise go undressed. However, when all is said and done, i thing the hard scientific evidence supports evolution. In addition, when you contemplate how God has worked through history, evolution seems to fit better. God didn't just just snap Israel into existence; he started with one guy and grew it into a family and then a tribe and then a nation and a kingdom. Out of Israel He brought the Church, starting with the twelve disciples and growing it like a mustard seed into the billion strong liturgical empire we have today. God created a temporal universe in order to lay foundations and build on them over time. If He follows this pattern in recorded history, why not in prerecorded history?
When all is said and done, i think creationists make the same mistake as darwinists. They confuse natural science with theology. Creationists and darwinists fail to realize that these things have different ends. Natural science wants to understand how we got here and evolution provides an answer. Theology tries to explain why we are here and evolution cannot answer this question, only God can. The fatal flaw of darwinism is looking to natural science when the answers can't be found in nature. The fatal flaw of creationism is the exact opposite. The Bible has history in it, but it is not by its natural a historical textbook. The purpose of the Bible is to answer theological questions, the questions of why.
Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it cannot tell us why we are here. The Bible doesn't say how God made us, only that God made us. The Bible tells us we are made in the image of God, to manifest His authority on earth. The Bible tells us we are here to glorify Him by loving one another. It tells us how to find the meaning of existence, the purpose of our being, true happiness and fulfillment.
I guess, for creationists, that's just not enough.
<< - To Part I
Evolution and darwinism are not the same thing, nor are creationism and intelligent design. Evolution is a completely legitimate scientific theory. Darwinism is an absurdest philosophy masquerading as natural science. Evolutionists and creationists are opposed to one another but they are both attempting to answer the same question; how did we get here? They want to provide the efficient cause of humanity, earth and the universe. Darwinism and intelligent design are similarly diametrically opposed, but they too are trying to answer a singular question; why are we here. They want to explain the final cause.
I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. That is, i believe in an intelligent design to the universe but i accept evolution as God's modus operandi in creation. It does not matter to me if you believe in evolution or creationism. The theological truths about God and the universe are largely unaffected by what position you take there. I would much rather spend my time blasting darwinism and upholding intelligent design. However, i feel i should give a brief explanation for my position and i'll do that near the end.
Evolution seems to fit well with naturalism as it doesn't expressly call for a supernatural outside force. As i said last week, there is nothing inherently wrong with naturalism so long as it is merely methodological. The problem arises when one corrupts it into metaphysical naturalism.
Metaphysics is the study of being, it is the purest form of philosophy, seeking to understand the formal and final causes; what we are and why we are here. Naturalism is the assumption of purely natural causality. When it is applied to metaphysics we are left with a philosophy of being which rejects anything beyond the seen, beyond the natural. This is, of course, incomparable with creationism and so it strives to find footing in evolution. The resulting monstrosity is known as darwinism.
Although this may at first seem a match made in heaven (forgive the pun), we quickly come upon two major problems. The first problem is the law of entropy. This argument has been used ad nauseum against evolution, and that is not my intention here, especially considering that it doesn't work. However, the argument does have some weight against darwinism. Entropy is sameness or disorder. The law of entropy states that in a closed system the amount of entropy can only increase. That is, assuming no outside force, things only ever get more similar and less complex. Consider a camp fire reducing the wooden logs to their base components. The diversity and complexity of the wood are gone. Only ash remains.
Evolution calls for a growing of complexity and diversity over time, seemingly in direct contradiction to the law of entropy. The only explanation is that this isn't a closed system. The darwinist would argue the decrees in entropy in evolution is attributable to increased entropy elsewhere, namely the sun and to a much lesser extent the earth. However, just think about that. What is really more impressive? A universe simply snapped into existence with all the complexities already in place or a universe which gradually unfolds in time with the capacity to grow in complexity despite a tendency towards ciaos? The second one calls out for God with far greater subtlety, but it calls out for a God far more worthy of being called out to.
The second problem is easier to express and harder to refute. Evolution is a process. By definition it has to start somewhere. You can't have infinite regression. This is an old argument, but it still works just as well. There must be a first mover, an uncaused cause, to set the entire process in motion. Darwinism can't account for this. In Catholic theology this is the very definition of God, the first mover, the uncaused cause. Evolution can't tell me if God really is personal or loving or even sentient, but it tells me God exists.
Creationism and evolution both call out for God, they just do it in different ways. Creationism is more blatant, evolution is more subtle. Creationism is in a hurry, evolution is more patient. While creationism screams for God's existence, evolution suffices with a whisper.
Intelligent design can be taken on multiple levels, but at it's core it simply says there is a reason for existence beyond random chance, that there is a God who is sentient and who designed the laws by which our universe functions. It allows for meaning and purpose in existence. It says there is more than just what we see. Although it is usually paired with creationism, there is no reason to reject evolution as the means for this intelligent design.
I won't say creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, but there are many very intelligent people who embrace it. I think creationists are wrong, but they do have some good arguments, and they keep evolutionists honest. They even expose serious flaws in the theory of evolution which might otherwise go undressed. However, when all is said and done, i thing the hard scientific evidence supports evolution. In addition, when you contemplate how God has worked through history, evolution seems to fit better. God didn't just just snap Israel into existence; he started with one guy and grew it into a family and then a tribe and then a nation and a kingdom. Out of Israel He brought the Church, starting with the twelve disciples and growing it like a mustard seed into the billion strong liturgical empire we have today. God created a temporal universe in order to lay foundations and build on them over time. If He follows this pattern in recorded history, why not in prerecorded history?
When all is said and done, i think creationists make the same mistake as darwinists. They confuse natural science with theology. Creationists and darwinists fail to realize that these things have different ends. Natural science wants to understand how we got here and evolution provides an answer. Theology tries to explain why we are here and evolution cannot answer this question, only God can. The fatal flaw of darwinism is looking to natural science when the answers can't be found in nature. The fatal flaw of creationism is the exact opposite. The Bible has history in it, but it is not by its natural a historical textbook. The purpose of the Bible is to answer theological questions, the questions of why.
Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it cannot tell us why we are here. The Bible doesn't say how God made us, only that God made us. The Bible tells us we are made in the image of God, to manifest His authority on earth. The Bible tells us we are here to glorify Him by loving one another. It tells us how to find the meaning of existence, the purpose of our being, true happiness and fulfillment.
I guess, for creationists, that's just not enough.
<< - To Part I
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Galileo Myth
Galileo, Galileo. Everybody knows this story, right? Scientist puts forth a revolutionary new concept that challenges the presuppositions of the religious elites and so they and silence him. People love telling this story because it perfectly illustrates the close-minded, anti-scientific nature of the Catholic Church, or maybe even Christianity in general. The fact that it isn't true is... inconsequential.
I should clarify; Galileo did believe the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) and he was tried by the inquisition for heresy, twice, and the second time found to be gravely suspect of it. However, his heliocentric views were not really the reason for his trial. There are plenty of people who have already explained what happened. If you want in in-depth look at the history or theories in dispute, try Google or click here. As I really don't like rehashing the same ground as everyone else, i'm going to try and take a slightly different approach. I'm more interested in the theology and philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, so i will try and discuss these.
The Catholic Church has a strong dislike for schism and scandal. At the time of Galileo this had grown into a blatant paranoia, largely due to the resent emergence of Protestantism. This is understandable considering the 30 years of war and millions of casualties, on both side, which followed. (However, in truth, this was more political than religious (i'll address it in a future post)) Although, as Christians we should be a little paranoid about these two things. Schism is a break in the unity of the Church. Christ's final request to the Father before His passion was that we would be one, that we would posses a true unity. As the Church of Christ, we strive vigilantly to manifest that unity He prayed for. To cause schism is to go in the completely wrong direction.
To cause scandal is to cause another to stumble in their faith, to lead another away from Christ. That is, away from the eternal joy of union with the Trinity and towards an eternal oblivion of despair. Jesus says it is better that a man have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea, than that he would cause scandal. This is very serious. Additionally, as a schism is a breaking with the Church, the ordinary means of coming to Christ, schism is a form of scandal. When we discuss these, we are not discussing merely earthly affairs. Schism and scandal can have eternal ramifications. Under the Church's understanding of these things, they place people's immortal souls in jeopardy.
This is my first premise; schism and scandal are very serious issues, the Church is completely justified in treating them as such. At the time of Galileo the debate between geocentrists and heliocentrists was very heated. There were scientists and theologians on both sides of the issue. In fact, heliocentrism was the minority opinion among scientists. Geocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Heliocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Within this debate Galileo emerged as a dominant and divisive figure. (He was not nice to his opposition.)
Galileo had a talent for angering his opponents and disenfranchising his friends. The issue was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it. He was a brilliant scientist but politically, he was a moron. He wanted to push his theory in political and theological circles as well as scientific ones. Where ever the question could be raised, he was there raising it. Eventually the Church told him to shut up. They felt his tactics could cause scandal. They were worried the debate had potential to give rise to schism. In order to prevent this, they chose to embrace the majority scientific and theological position and suppress the dominate voice of the minority. Again, this was done, not to refute a scientific position or define a theological concept, but solely to prevent those two great evils of scandal and schism.
Imagine if you were in the military. Your commanding officer gives you an order. You would have to follow it, right? Now, imagine if you disagreed with that order and you disobeyed. What would happen? It would not matter if you were right or wrong, you would be in trouble. The Catholic Church is like the military. As a Catholic i am under the authority of my superiors; primarily my priest and bishop. If they tell me to do something i need to do it. It was the same with Galileo. The Church told him he was allowed to conjecture on heliocentrism but that he couldn't actively defend it. (This is kinda like telling a five year old that he can play with a ball so long as he doesn't throw it. There is nothing wrong with the ball, but if he throws it he might break something.) So what happened? Galileo decided to ignore them and threw the ball.. ah.. actively defend heliocentrism. Consequence? He got slapped down. (There is nothing wrong with throwing balls, but i told you not to. So now you are in time-out.)
It was felt that Galileo was causing schism and scandal. His higher ups limited the means by which he could defend his position in order to stop this. He didn't obey them and so he got in trouble. If you study the history of the Church and contemplate the life of Galileo you will probably come to a few conclusions: If he had avoided the political lime light rather than pursuing it, he probably would have been fine. If he had limited himself to science, rather than defending his position in theological forums as well, he probably would have been fine. If he had been willing to consider heliocentrism a theory, rather than definitively true, he probably would have been fine. If he hadn't insulted and alienated all his politically powerful friends (like the Pope), that would have helped. It seems as if Galileo was trying his absolute best to get himself excommunicated. We should not be shocked that he almost succeeded.
(side note: Galileo believed the sun was at the center of the universe, so technically, he was wrong.)
A few points in Summary:
-The Church never condemned heliocentrism as wrong, only as problematic.
-Galileo was not a pure scientist, he debated theology as well.
-Galileo did not get in trouble for being wrong, but rather for being disobedient.
(Edit: The sentence against Galileo was not an excommunication. He was found gravely suspect of heresy, and sentenced to house arrest.)
I should clarify; Galileo did believe the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) and he was tried by the inquisition for heresy, twice, and the second time found to be gravely suspect of it. However, his heliocentric views were not really the reason for his trial. There are plenty of people who have already explained what happened. If you want in in-depth look at the history or theories in dispute, try Google or click here. As I really don't like rehashing the same ground as everyone else, i'm going to try and take a slightly different approach. I'm more interested in the theology and philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, so i will try and discuss these.
The Catholic Church has a strong dislike for schism and scandal. At the time of Galileo this had grown into a blatant paranoia, largely due to the resent emergence of Protestantism. This is understandable considering the 30 years of war and millions of casualties, on both side, which followed. (However, in truth, this was more political than religious (i'll address it in a future post)) Although, as Christians we should be a little paranoid about these two things. Schism is a break in the unity of the Church. Christ's final request to the Father before His passion was that we would be one, that we would posses a true unity. As the Church of Christ, we strive vigilantly to manifest that unity He prayed for. To cause schism is to go in the completely wrong direction.
To cause scandal is to cause another to stumble in their faith, to lead another away from Christ. That is, away from the eternal joy of union with the Trinity and towards an eternal oblivion of despair. Jesus says it is better that a man have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea, than that he would cause scandal. This is very serious. Additionally, as a schism is a breaking with the Church, the ordinary means of coming to Christ, schism is a form of scandal. When we discuss these, we are not discussing merely earthly affairs. Schism and scandal can have eternal ramifications. Under the Church's understanding of these things, they place people's immortal souls in jeopardy.
This is my first premise; schism and scandal are very serious issues, the Church is completely justified in treating them as such. At the time of Galileo the debate between geocentrists and heliocentrists was very heated. There were scientists and theologians on both sides of the issue. In fact, heliocentrism was the minority opinion among scientists. Geocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Heliocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Within this debate Galileo emerged as a dominant and divisive figure. (He was not nice to his opposition.)
Galileo had a talent for angering his opponents and disenfranchising his friends. The issue was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it. He was a brilliant scientist but politically, he was a moron. He wanted to push his theory in political and theological circles as well as scientific ones. Where ever the question could be raised, he was there raising it. Eventually the Church told him to shut up. They felt his tactics could cause scandal. They were worried the debate had potential to give rise to schism. In order to prevent this, they chose to embrace the majority scientific and theological position and suppress the dominate voice of the minority. Again, this was done, not to refute a scientific position or define a theological concept, but solely to prevent those two great evils of scandal and schism.
Imagine if you were in the military. Your commanding officer gives you an order. You would have to follow it, right? Now, imagine if you disagreed with that order and you disobeyed. What would happen? It would not matter if you were right or wrong, you would be in trouble. The Catholic Church is like the military. As a Catholic i am under the authority of my superiors; primarily my priest and bishop. If they tell me to do something i need to do it. It was the same with Galileo. The Church told him he was allowed to conjecture on heliocentrism but that he couldn't actively defend it. (This is kinda like telling a five year old that he can play with a ball so long as he doesn't throw it. There is nothing wrong with the ball, but if he throws it he might break something.) So what happened? Galileo decided to ignore them and threw the ball.. ah.. actively defend heliocentrism. Consequence? He got slapped down. (There is nothing wrong with throwing balls, but i told you not to. So now you are in time-out.)
It was felt that Galileo was causing schism and scandal. His higher ups limited the means by which he could defend his position in order to stop this. He didn't obey them and so he got in trouble. If you study the history of the Church and contemplate the life of Galileo you will probably come to a few conclusions: If he had avoided the political lime light rather than pursuing it, he probably would have been fine. If he had limited himself to science, rather than defending his position in theological forums as well, he probably would have been fine. If he had been willing to consider heliocentrism a theory, rather than definitively true, he probably would have been fine. If he hadn't insulted and alienated all his politically powerful friends (like the Pope), that would have helped. It seems as if Galileo was trying his absolute best to get himself excommunicated. We should not be shocked that he almost succeeded.
(side note: Galileo believed the sun was at the center of the universe, so technically, he was wrong.)
A few points in Summary:
-The Church never condemned heliocentrism as wrong, only as problematic.
-Galileo was not a pure scientist, he debated theology as well.
-Galileo did not get in trouble for being wrong, but rather for being disobedient.
(Edit: The sentence against Galileo was not an excommunication. He was found gravely suspect of heresy, and sentenced to house arrest.)
Saturday, August 18, 2012
When Can Catholics Wear Condoms? A Response
I've been putting this off for awhile, but i thought it was about time i starting using my blogspot account. After a few years of avoiding the thing, i figure either use it or get rid of it. So here i am using it.
Although i would have rather written on something more unique, to establish my individuality and distinctiveness, i'm writing a response piece. Someone i respect over at Patheos recently posted an article entitled When Can Catholics Wear Condoms? It's a good question. As he rightly points out, there is nothing wrong with wearing a condom.
"So we should feel free to wear condoms. We should feel free to wear four or five of them. Just not during sex."
I'm not going to bother recapping his entire argument. It suffices to say, it's a good question. The meat of the topic is; if you are using a condom for a purpose other than contraception, is it then ok? Our Holy Father has already given us one example in which it would be. If a gay prostitute wears a condom, the act itself is already contracepted by the fact that two men cannot procreate with each other. As a consequence the condom would be only to prevent the spread of HIV, this is a good thing.
While i cannot advocate going into this particular profession, being a condom wearing gay prostitute may be a step up from being a condom-free gay prostitute. (If you want to find true joy in life, this is probably a profession best avoided all together.)
Now, what of a married couple? The husband has AIDs and doesn't want to pass it to his wife. Could he wear a condom? While my esteemed counterpart answers in the affirmative, i would have to disagree. Sorry
The center of this discussion seems to come from Humanae Vitae, where it puts forth, "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic
means necessary to cure bodily diseases,"
(It seems to me that preventing bodily diseases of which there is a significant and immediate risk would also qualify. So i see no problem here.)
It continues, "even if a foreseeable
impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such
impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
I would put forth, this is where condoms face a problem. It has to do with how they work to prevent AIDs. I'll get to this in a second.
This concept, from Humanae Vitae, is based off of Thomas Aquinas's Principle of Double Effect, which allows for certain harmful actions to be justifiable given three conditions;
- the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
Sex is good. Wrapping a piece of rubber around a body part is... weird, but morally neutral. So, i see no problem here.
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances
sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent
exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.
Not getting AIDs, or not passing them on to a loved on, is good. I would classify not getting pregnant as morally neutral, although also sad. Due diligence to minimize the harm is something i'll bring back up latter.
2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself.
You might notice i went out of order. That's because the second condition is the one that gives me the greatest pause. The bad effect cannot be the means to the good effect.
The condom works, both as a contraceptive method and to prevent AIDs, by preventing the transfer of fluid from the man to the woman. The very thing that helps to prevent AIDs is also that thing which renders the act infertile. The bad effect, the contraceptive attribute of the condom, would be the means of preventing AIDs.
In chemical contraception, by comparison, the pill alters the hormonal balance of the woman. This altered hormonal balance may have the dual effect of curing a medical condition and reducing fertility. However, these two effect are independent of each other. In theory, a woman could receive the medical benefits and still get pregnant. The one is not dependent on the other.
With condoms, these two effects are inseparably united to each other. There is no way in which the woman can get pregnant if the condom is doing it's job properly, that is, of preventing the exchange of bodily fluids. The impediment is being directly intended for the motive of preventing AIDs. I do not see how condoms could fit with Humanae Vitae or the principle of double effect.
There is also a point from condition #3 i want to address: Doing due diligence to minimize harm. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing STDs. Abstinence is. If your only goal is to prevent the transfer of an STD, it seems abstinence is more fitting.
Additionally, when one uses a condom, for any reason, they are directly separating the procreative element from sexuality. They are dehumanizing it. This leads to seeing sex as an ends in itself. It reduces your partner to a mere means to your own sexual gratification. It does a great deal of harm.
When i am in a state of sin, i will abstain from the Eucharist. I love and adore the Eucharist and receiving it grants me a great deal of grace. However, when i am in a state of sin i will abstain, and the abstaining grants me far more graces then the reception would have. This is because of my love for it and my desire to do no harm to my Lord.
Sometimes in life, we are called to abstain from things that are good in order to receive something better. Using a condom in the confines of a marriage will do harm to that marriage. Sometimes abstinence is the fullest form of self giving love, and will do good for the couple.
The third condition seems to rule out condoms on the grounds that abstinence does less harm and the second condition would rule condoms out all together.
“[The Church] of course does not see [condoms] as a real and moral
solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of
infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more
humane sexuality.”
Pope Benedict XV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)